Understanding the

Filipino Green Consumer:

An Exploratory Study
Rizalito L. Gregorio
4

The Occasional Paper Series (OPS) is a regular publication of the Ateneo Graduate
School of Business (AGSB) intended for the purpose of disseminating the views of
its faculty that are considered to be of value to the discipline, practice and teaching
of management and entrepreneurship. The OPS includes papers and analysis
developed as part of a research project, think pieces and articles written for national
and international conferences. The OPS provides a platform for faculty to contribute
to the debate on current management issues that could lead to collaborative research,
management innovation and improvements in business education.

The views expressed in the OPS are solely those of the author (s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of AGSB or the Ateneo de Manila University.

Quotations or citations from articles published in the OPS require permission of

the author.

Published by the Ateneo de Manila University

Graduate School of Business
Ateneo Professional Schools Building
Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City, Philippines 1200
Tel.: (632) 899-7691 to 96 or (632) 729-2001 to 2003
Fax: (632) 899-5548
Website: http://gsb.ateneo.edu/

Limited copies may be requested from the AGSB Research Unit

Telefax: (632) 898-5007
Email: submit@agsbresearch.org

Occasional Paper No.13

 1

Understanding the Filipino

Green Consumer:
An Exploratory Study
Rizalito L. Gregorio
Ateneo de Manila University
Graduate School of Business

Abstract

T
he popularity of the environmental movement during the
last few decades has led to a growth in “green marketing”
practices in many countries, including the Philippines.
Nevertheless, there is still a lack of substantive research
into the profile of the Filipino consumer as a marketing target
audience for products with eco-friendly claims.

This study is a pioneering effort to understand the impact of

green marketing on Filipino consumers and provide a better
understanding of their profile as “Green” consumers. An exploratory
study was undertaken using a series of focus group discussions in
the National Capital Region as well as in Cebu, and the results
provide intriguing insights on the perception and behavior of
Filipino green consumers.

Abstract
2

Significance of the Study

T The progress of the environmental movement during the

last few decades has prompted corporations to engage
in “green marketing”, which utilizes environmentally
friendly production and marketing processes. Some
of the early efforts aimed at understanding the green consumer
involved the profiling of consumers in terms of their demographic
characteristics, their knowledge of, beliefs on, attitudes toward, and
behavior regarding environmentally friendly consumer practices.
The study of the green consumer is
The study of the not limited only to those consumers
green consumer is who exhibit a favorable attitude
not limited only to toward environmentally friendly
those consumers who marketing, but includes different
consumer segments with varying
exhibit a favorable characteristics.
attitude toward
environmentally These pioneering activities resulted in
friendly marketing, different customer segment profiles
depending upon the country where
but includes different
the study was conducted, but there
consumer segments have been no published studies so
with varying far that profiled the Filipino green
characteristics. consumer. In view of the inherent
flaws in indiscriminately adopting
a foreign customer profile for the Philippine consumer market,
there is a need to gain a better understanding of the Filipino green
consumers.

Occasional Paper No.13

 3

The pioneering nature of this research necessitates the use of a

qualitative study utilizing focus group discussions on issues already
explored in earlier studies about green consumers in other countries.
Some of the research issues to be explored relate to the attitudes of
Filipino consumers toward the environment, their perceptions on
the current environmentally friendly marketing practices, and their
behavior in the face of “green” marketing claims.

The resulting findings from the discussions can provide insights

into the profile of Filipino consumers vis-à-vis green marketing and
serve as input into future quantitative studies that seek to create a
more precise profile of the market.

Significance of the Study

4

Review of Literature

A
s McDonagh and Clark (1995) have pointed out, the
growth of concerns over the environment has led to
demand by consumers for products that have claimed to
be environmentally friendly (or “eco friendly”). Hence,
it is of great value to marketing practitioners to gain a deeper
understanding of the profile of green consumers.

A review of earlier studies shows that attempts to create a profile

of these consumers have led to results that varied according to the
population being studied and the variables used to classify them.

For instance, a segmentation study by do Paço and Raposo

(2008) using a survey of Portugese consumers had established a
profile of customers belonging to three segments based on their
demographics, knowledge of, attitudes toward, and behavior
regarding environmental consumer practices. The various
segments resulting from their study were categorized as (1) The
Uncommitted (36% of the market and described as ages 18-34,
with high educational attainment, either students or administrative
workers, with negative positions on the environmental movement);
(2) The Green Activists (35% of the market and described as 25-
34 and 45-54, with highest educational levels, working in more
prestigious and better-paying positions, with favorable positions
on the environmental movement but skeptical of corporate green
marketing campaigns); and (3) The Undefined (29% of the market
and described as older, with lower educational levels, occupying
jobs ranging from unskilled labor to senior management, with very

Occasional Paper No.13

 5

strong positions regarding environmental issues and very skeptical

about corporate green marketing claims).

Another attempt to profile green consumers was done by Trivedi,

Patel, and Savalia (2011) using a survey on Indian consumers.
Their study resulted in three types of green consumers: (1) The
Energy Economist (described as those who factor in economic
considerations for their pro-environment behavior); 2) The Energy
Conservist (described as those who take care of energy conservation);
and (3) The Environmental Activist (described as those willing to
take proactive actions to protect the environment).

The study by Suplico (2009) on Filipino college students merely

used the Roper Organization’s five consumer segments based on a
study on US consumers. The five segments used were: (1) True-
blue Greens (20% of the market and described as the most actively
pro-environmental willing to pay a 7% premium for eco-friendly
products, are the oldest and wealthiest segment and who devote
time and resources for environmental concerns); (2) Greenback
Greens (20% of the market and described as those willing to spend
time rather than money on environmental practices, the youngest
and educated segment with a very busy lifestyle); (3) Sprouts (31%
of the market and described as those who desire eco-friendly laws,
slow to embrace green consumer practices and willing to pay only
a premium of only 4% for eco-friendly products); (4) Grousers
(9% of the market and described as those with below-average
education and income who believe that business should deal with
environmental problems and perceive green products to be more
expensive); and (5) Basic Browns (33% of the market and described
as the least involved in environmental practices, the poorest and
least educated segment who are also predominantly male, Southern,

Review of Literature
6

blue-collar and who believe that individuals cannot do anything

about the environment).

An examination of the various segmentation studies mentioned
above suggests that green consumer profiling appears to be country-
specific due to inherent differences in lifestyles, beliefs, cultures,
and practices. Hence, there are serious questions about the validity
of simply applying a green customer profile from another country
to the Philippine consumer market.

Occasional Paper No.13

 7

Methodology

1. FGD Discussion Procedure

In view of the lack of studies on the Filipino green consumer,
this research utilized a qualitative approach to a series of focus
group discussions (or FGDs). The procedures employed
in the conduct of the FGD sessions incorporated some of
the suggestions of Calder (1977), Greenbaum (1988), and
Edmunds (1999).

2. Group Design
Since the planned survey intended to create a representative
sample of the nationwide consumers, its design took into
account those variables that would influence the characteristics
of green consumers. Taking into consideration the issues raised
by Vicsek (2012) regarding the effect of the profiles of the
members of each group, the group design was further based on
variables relevant in affecting the discussion results.

To account for the cultural and attitudinal differences across

the country, the sessions were held in two locations; namely,
the National Capital Region and Metro Cebu.

Although there are currently no published studies on Filipino

consumers aside from that by Suplico (2009)---which used
western green consumer classifications on a sample of Filipino
undergraduate students---studies conducted on foreign
consumers showed that there were a number of important
socio-demographic variables that affect the knowledge, beliefs,

Methodology
8

and behavior of green consumers. Thus, those variables taken

into consideration in designing the group composition were:

a. Age
Studies by Memery, Megicks, and Williams (2005) as
well as by D’Souza, Taghian, Lamb, and Peretaitko (2007)
find younger people to be more sensitive to environmental
issues.

b. Gender
Studies have shown mixed findings on the effect of gender
on environmental attitudes. For instance, Ottman and
Reilly (1998), Memery et al. (2005), and do Paco, Raposo,
and Filho (2009) suggest that women exhibit greater
sensitivity toward and better perception of environmental
issues. However, studies by Mostafa (2007), D’Souza
et al. (2007) show that men possess deeper knowledge about
the environment.

c. Socio-economic Class
Ottman and Reilly (1998) suggest that those with above-
average income exhibit greater sensitivity to environmental
issues due to their lower sensitivity to the price differences
between eco-friendly and non-eco-friendly products.

Studies by Ottman and Reilly (1998); Memery et al. (2005);

D‘Souza et al. (2007); and do Paço et al. (2009) show that
consumers with higher educational attainment exhibit
better perception of and greater sensitivity to environmental
issues.

Occasional Paper No.13

 9

d. Other Variables
There are other variables that tend to distinguish green
consumers from each other such as psychographics (see,
for example, do Paço, et al. (2009), disposition toward
environmental consumer practices, psychological needs, and
motives (Ottman & Reilly, 1998). However, for practical
reasons, these variables could not be used when grouping
the participants in the FGD sessions.

e. Resulting FGD Grouping

For the present study, the variables considered for the
grouping were age and purchasing power. Because existing
studies show mixed results on the effect of gender, this
variable was not taken into consideration. Consequently,
the group design used three classifications for age (16-30,
31-45, 46 and above) and two classifications for purchasing
power (low to middle-class, and upper-middle to upper-
class).

Given that this study involved two locations, three age

groups, and two purchasing power classifications, a total
of twelve sessions were conducted among a total of 112
participants.

Results of this exploratory study may subsequently be used

as input in the design of a nationwide survey intended to
create a profile of the Filipino green consumer.

3. Discussion Guide
The FGD discussion guide (Appendix A) was based on
questions used in a number of studies on the green consumers

Methodology
10

by do Paço and Raposo (2009), Florenthal and Arling (2011),

and Datta (2011). Its two major portions covered cognitive
and behavioral issues on eco-friendly consumerism.

4. Limitations of the Study

Just like most qualitative studies, the major limitation is the
use of non-probability sampling techniques in the selection of
respondents. Hence, it could not be determined whether or
not the findings can be generalized to that of the Philippine
population. As Kinnear and Taylor (1996) have pointed out
about FGD participant selection, “the approach is not intended
to provide statistically or scientifically accurate data.”

Occasional Paper No.13

 11

Detailed Analysis

1. Responses to the Questions

a. General Thoughts About the Environment
Regardless of their demographic background, all
respondents expressed concerns about the environment,
not only for themselves but also for their children and the
future generations.

All expressed the beliefs that the environment had gotten

worse, the ozone layer has been disappearing, the weather
has turned hotter and less predictable, and floods are
becoming more frequent and severe. They also noted that
the earth’s resources were limited and that people should
not over-exploit these resources.

The two most common concerns raised were flooding and

air pollution, both of which were attributed to three sectors:
(a) business for adding to the pollution; (b) government
for not exercising political will; and (c) the people for not
having enough discipline.

For these problems, some blamed modernization. One

respondent believed that life was a trade-off between
modernization and living in harmony with nature
(“Modernization versus Civilization”). Some also blamed
technology for causing today’s generation to be too
detached from other people and nature. However, a few

Detailed Analysis
12

believed that technology can be used to help nature (for

instance, by using paperless office procedures).

From the remarks, it seems that the concerns expressed about

the environment actually reflected a selfish perspective, as
these concerns were not really
. . .it seems that for the environment but for
the concerns themselves. For instance, organic
expressed about food was preferred because it was
considered healthy for humans,
the environment and trees were not supposed to
actually reflected a be cut down simply because they
selfish perspective, can prevent flooding and reduce
as these concerns air pollution, and not because
were not really for the participants cared for the
trees. In addition, the impact of
the environment pollution was never assessed in
but for themselves. terms of their effects on plants
and wildlife. To the respondents,
saving the earth was only important because it was a way to
save themselves and, in a sense, the views expressed about
the environment were actually exploitative. The comments
were quite revealing: “Trees need to grow so that we can
have fresh air. They are important in preventing flooding”;
and “The death of fish will result in hunger of Filipinos.
Fish is the most affordable viand.”

This perspective of man’s domineering role over nature is

also evident in the responses to the remaining questions.

Occasional Paper No.13

 13

b. What the Term “Eco-friendly” Means to Them

Participants believed the term meant that business should
do its share in protecting the environment, especially since
saving the environment can be a profitable venture for
businesses of different sizes. The term also evoked a promise
that “the technology being used (was) friendly to nature.”

When probed, it became clear that their concern was

limited only to the welfare of humans. Comments ranged
from “Our own lives will suffer”, “We need to love whatever
God gave us because in return this will help us”, to “We
will be the ones benefitting by taking care of nature.”, ” and
“Eco-friendly means we need to protect the environment
to sustain human life.”

The environment was seen as playing a vital role in

determining human health:

• “We need to take care of our environment so that we

will live longer. We already have too many types of
diseases”;
• “It means that we need to use something good for our
health”;
• “Air pollution contributes to aging”;
• “Garbage pollutes the river, and the chemicals destroy
the corrals and the marine life. This is bad for the health
of humans.”

It must be noted that the participants generally exhibited

a stewardship role, with one of them noting that, “Eco-

Detailed Analysis
14

friendly means we need to take care of our environment

because there will be more children who will be born. For
the future generations.”

c. Awareness of Eco-friendly Products

An analysis of the products mentioned and the reasons
given for citing them showed that these were selected due
to their contribution to human welfare. Organic foods
and medicine were mentioned nine times because they do
“not create side effects”; do “not harm humans”; and are
“free from cholesterol.” Paper Bags were mentioned six
times because “they do not cause flooding unlike plastic
bags.” Hybrid cars and electric vehicles were mentioned
four times because “they do not cause air pollution.” Eco-
friendly appliances were also mentioned four times because
they “do not destroy the ozone layer” or “emit radiation,
which is bad for the health.” Also, eco-friendly bulbs “use
less electricity.”

d. Awareness of Eco-friendly Brands

The most frequently mentioned brands perceived to be eco-
friendly were actually those that provided health benefits.
Boysen was mentioned three times due to the water-based
paint that was “not painful to the throat.” Baygon was also
mentioned three times because of its insecticide which was
“not harmful to humans.” Samsung TV was mentioned
twice because it emitted “less radiation.” Starbucks was
chosen twice because as one participant noted, “Most of
their products come from fruit extracts. They do not even
serve soft drinks because it is bad for the health.” Nissan

Occasional Paper No.13

 15

was mentioned twice because of its recently introduced

electric car.

e. Awareness of Stores Promoting Eco-friendly Practices

While several stores were mentioned during the discussions,
when further probed, the participants were unsure if
these store’s practices were due to compliance with local
ordinances or due to the financial benefits gained to their
businesses (e.g., use of waterless urinals).

Stores commended due to their products with health

benefits included Healthy Options, Rustan’s, Watsons,
and Starbucks. Bakeries that do on-site baking instead of
merely offering packaged bread were mentioned because
their products were “freshly-made.” 7-Eleven was also
mentioned since “the process of buying assures you that the
food is clean.”

The remaining stores mentioned were due to their minimal

use of packaging. Examples cited were fruit and vegetable
vendors and neighborhood bakeries that have always used
paper bags.

f. Willingness to Buy Products that Underwen Animal Testing

When asked if they were willing to buy products tested
on animals, 94 percent of the respondents indicated their
willingness. The reasons given once again revealed the
perspective that humans are a definite priority over other
creatures. Reasons included

Detailed Analysis
16

• “It is safer for humans”;

• “It’s proven safe”;
• “There is nothing wrong in trying it out on animals”;
• “Humans are higher forms of animals”; and
• “Anyway, everything is given to us by God and we just
need to be responsible guardians.”

Only two people out of 112 expressed their unwillingness

to buy the products due to their concern for animals. One
referred to animal testing as “cruelty to animals.” Another
noted that he was “not willing because animals are also
living things.”

g. Perception on the Cost of Eco-Friendly versus Non-Eco-

Friendly Products
When asked about whether or not they perceived eco-
friendly products as more expensive, replies were mixed.
Less than half (47%) believed that eco-friendly products
were more expensive, citing reasons such as shorter life
spans (e.g., paper bags). Specifically, the more expensive
“natural products” were “better,” and provide “more safety”
and “do not use preservatives.” Others reasons were

• eco-friendly products were “still new in the market and

equipment used to manufacture these products are still
more expensive”;
• “new equipment (was) necessary to make the eco-
friendly products”; and
• the manufacturers needed “to recover their R&D costs
for these products.”
Occasional Paper No.13
 17

One participant observed that “products made of recycled

materials should be cheaper” and “the fact that it is not
cheaper makes it too expensive.”

On the other hand, there were those who believed that

eco-friendly products were actually cheaper or at least not
“more expensive.” A few cited lower overall ownership
costs (“Cheaper because they can be recycled”; “They are
re-usable”; “Paperless office systems have lower operating
cost.”) A few said that these products were at least not
“more expensive” because of a marketing necessity (“They
are cheaper in order to attract more customers.”), while
others provided manufacturing-based explanations (“They
are made using manual process, which costs less”; “They
also use cheaper raw materials that are natural, recycled,
and recyclable.”)

h. Perceptions on the Relative Quality of Eco-Friendly Products

Close to two-thirds (63%) perceived eco-friendly products
as of better quality. Majority of the reasons centered around
their health benefits such as: “Organic food is friendly”;
“Organic food products are better. Natural ingredients
are better for humans”; ”No chemicals, no preservatives”;
“Water-based insecticide is not painful to the throat and
chest”; and “Electric vehicles do not pollute.” Others noted
a better sense of quality from these products because they
offer lower overall costs such as in the case of eco-friendly
light bulbs, which were “longer-lasting“ and had “lower
energy consumption, which prevents energy shortage”.

Detailed Analysis
18

One participant also noted a technological advantage,

saying, “Paperless systems (were) more efficient than paper-
based.” Another even speculated that the reason was because
“the manufacturers based their products on existing non-
eco-friendly products and improved on them.”
Others had an opposing opinion, claiming that it is the
non-eco-friendly products that actually had better quality as
evidenced by their greater durability, noting that “they can
be used many times”. In contrast, “paper bags are destroyed
easily, especially when it becomes wet”; and “Products
using bio-degradable plastics will not last as long.” Hence,
one participant expressed a preference to “buy the non-bio-
degradable consumer durable product because it will be
cheaper over the long-run.”

Noteworthy was a remark from a respondent because it

reflected his attitude on the quality of recycled products: “If
it is recycled, I do not feel that it is clean (either the product
or its packaging). It is not pure anymore.”

i. Awareness of the Universal Recycling Symbol

All of the participants shown three variations of the Universal
Recycling Symbol (Appendix B), and 73 percent indicated
that they recognized. However, the meaning of the symbol
was less clear to them, with some believing that it referred
to the product while others believed that it referred to the
packaging. A few even said that it was an instruction to the
consumer to “Reduce, re-use, recycle.”

Occasional Paper No.13

 19

j. Habit of Checking for Eco-friendly Logo Before Purchase

Even though almost three-fourths of the respondents
recognized a product, only eight percent checked if it was
eco-friendly before purchasing. To them, the most important
considerations were price, expiration date, durability, and
the brand that they were used to buying.

k. Use of Recycled Shopping Bag Instead of Disposable Plastic Bag

Sixty percent of respondents reported that they used recycled
shopping bags. These were used the least by Cebu CD and
young Cebu AB participants, citing reasons such as expense,
size, habit, and the hassle of bringing them along as factors
that discouraged them from using this type of packaging.

l. Willingness to Pay a Premium for Eco-friendly Products

Average Premium for Eco-Friendly Products

AB 14.7%
CD 10.4%
NCR 16.6%
CEBU 8.5%
TOTAL 12.5%

As the table above shows, on the average, the participants

claimed that they were willing to pay a 12.5 percent premium
for eco-friendly products with the AB groups and those
from the National Capital Region indicating willingness to
pay a premium above the average while those from the CD
groups and from Cebu indicated below-average willingness
to pay a premium.
Detailed Analysis
20

m. Preference for Energy-efficient Household Appliances

Almost all respondents (i.e., 95%) indicated a preference
for selecting energy-efficient household appliances. Reasons
given were largely centered around the benefits to humans:

• “Saves money.”
• “Safe for humans.”
• “It helps me live long and also for my kids.”
• “To ensure energy supply in the future.”
• “To prevent energy shortage (the shortage might cause
an increase in prices.”

n. Eco-Friendly Brand-Switching Experience

Forty percent reported they had switched to another more
eco-friendly brand. However, it was apparent that the brand-
switching experience did not leave a lasting impression on
over 100 participants as only three specific brands were
singled out. One noted a switch to Shell gasoline (“it causes
less pollution”). Another mentioned switching from Collins
to Samsung (“to save electricity costs”). A third switched
from a generic container to Tupperware “because it [the
former] does not have chemicals harmful to health.”

o. Preference for Recycled or Biodegradable Products

Eighty-four percent indicated a preference for recycled or
biodegradable products. This figure is remarkable since
only eight percent had checked if the product they were
buying was recycled or bio-degradable.

Occasional Paper No.13

 21

Reasons cited for their preference pertained to the promotion

of human health and safety. Comments included

• “Eco-friendly products are made of natural materials,

which are better for the health.”
• “We can reduce garbage and help prevent flooding and
protect our health.”

Another set of reasons indicated the financial benefits

derived by the participants:

• “It saves me money.”

• “They are affordable.”
• “We can earn money by selling to junk dealers.”
• “It transforms the product from ‘useless to useful’ and
makes the products cheaper.”
• “We can re-use the product.”

A couple of participants noted a lack of preference for

recycled or bio-degradable products. One explained that it
was “because of hygiene issues” while another noted that
“mentally, we prefer it but we do not consciously do it.”

p. Habit of Purchasing Products in Refillable Containers

Almost three-quarters of respondents noted a habit of
buying products in refillable containers, with the practice
more prevalent among the CD groups and Cebuanos,
usually citing “to save money” as the reason. Products
purchased in refillable containers included purified water,

Detailed Analysis
22

ball pens, LPG, shampoo, perfume, edible oil, and printer

ink.

However, one participant indicated a refusal to engage in

this practice because the container “gets dirty over time due
to bacteria.”

q. Trash Segregation Behavior

Seventy-eight percent reported segregating their trash.
Most did it so mostly to comply with local ordinances in
their community--ie.: “to avoid fines” and “no segregation
means no garbage collection.” Others cited the financial
incentives from doing so, noting for example that “you can
create compost and sell used plastic bottles”.

Still others noted the benefit to nature from such practice

(which ultimately will benefit humans): “Because it
helps to conserve our environment. If I contribute to the
environment, I am also contributing to myself.”

Those who did not Those who did not practice

practice segregation segregation claimed to be either
claimed to be either too busy or left it to the garbage
collectors to segregate their trash.
too busy or left
it to the garbage r. Trash Reduction Behavior
collectors to Close to two-thirds (63%)
segregate their trash. consciously reduced the amount
of trash they created. Similar to
the pattern of responses to the other questions, the reasons
given were either the financial gains obtained (e.g., “I reuse

Occasional Paper No.13

 23

disposable plastic bags for my nephew’s store.”) or the

health and safety issues involved (e.g., “This is beneficial to
our health.”)

s. Closing Remarks from Some Participants

Toward the end of some of the sessions, some noteworthy
comments were elicited from the AB group from the
National Capital Region. Essentially, they themselves
noticed the incongruity between their beliefs regarding the
environment and their behavior as consumers.

Some attributed their lack of eco-friendly consumerism

was probably “due to convenience”, given that there were
“more non-eco-friendly than eco-friendly products.” Some
complained about the eco-friendly logo because “the labels
should be clearer” and “the meaning of the logos (was) not
clear; consequently, “The eco-friendly labeled products
(were) not really registering in my mind” and “maybe people
(did) not actually know what to look for.”

A few observed that eco-friendly marketing was not very

effective (“People have more influence on our behavior
than eco-friendly marketing” and “brand loyalty is more
important”). Consequently, as a couple of participants
observed: “We do not care enough to be bothered to look
for these products. It takes too much effort” and “Eco-
friendly things remain just an awareness issue but it is not
a way of life.”

These insights about their own behavior astonished some

participants. A young professional remarked that “this (was)

Detailed Analysis
24

very depressing because we (had) a lot of ideas from the

discussion, we are doing very little.” Another participant,
an environmental activist who leads tree-planting projects
for school children, was bewildered when she realized that
her behavior as a consumer was totally different from her
life as an eco-warrior.

2. Understanding the Underlying Motives

a. What is Eco-Friendly Consumerism?

To put the analysis of the responses in proper perspective,
it is essential to go back to the fundamental definitions of
eco-friendly consumerism.

Elkingto, Hailes and Makower (1990) defined

environmentally sound products and services as those that (a)
are not dangerous to the health of people or animals; (b) do
not cause damage to the environment during manufacture,
use, or disposal; (c) do not consume a disproportionate
amount of energy and other resources during manufacture,
use, or disposal; (d) do not cause unnecessary waste due
either to excessive packaging or to a short life span; (e) do
not involve the unnecessary use of or cruelty to animals;
and (f ) do not use materials derived from threatened species
or environments (emphasis added).

Chryssides and Kaler (1993) defined eco-friendly

consumerism as a “multifaceted concept” that includes
(a) preservation of the environment; (b) minimization of
pollution; (c) responsible use of nonrenewable resources;

Occasional Paper No.13

 25

and (d) animal welfare and species preservation (emphasis

added).

b. Conceptual Framework for Understanding Motives and Beliefs

According to Roberts and Bacon (1997), it was essential
to understand the motives, attitudes, behavior, and actions
of consumers with regard to ecological issues so as to
alleviate the damage to the environment brought about by
consumers.

Two theories are helpful in understanding the dynamics

among values, norms, and behavior. The first is the Value
Theory (Schwartz, 1994), which states that values underlie
actions. The second is the Value-Belief-Norm (or VBN)
Theory (Stern, 2000) which states that values directly
determine beliefs, and beliefs affect norms.

In addition, the research of Lopez and Cuervo-Arango

(2008) demonstrated that ecological beliefs, personal
norms, and eco-altruistic values were the main psychological
explanatory variables of environment protective behavior.

c. Cultural Differences Affecting Norms

From the results, one issue to be considered is whether
or not it is human nature to have an exploitative view of
the environment--where the plants and animals are to
be protected only because of their value to the welfare of
humans. To address this issue, it is worth noting that a
number of studies have pointed out differences in consumer
attitudes and behaviors due to differing cultural traditions.

Detailed Analysis
26

Several scholars have suggested that Chinese consumers

possess a bio-centric or eco-centric view of the world.
For instance, Zhang (1998) noted that the Chinese were
influenced by the thoughts of Taoism by Lao Tzu, which
proposed a concept of ‘‘man-nature unity’’ where humans
were supposed to integrate with the natural world rather
than to try to master it. Others such as Yau (1988) and Chan
(2001) noted that the Chinese placed great emphasis on
living in harmony with nature. According to Chan, Wong,
and Leung (2007), this world-view extended to consumers
whose beliefs and actions were guided by their Taoist view
of the world.

In contrast, some scholars proposed that Christian consumers

possessed an anthropocentric view of the world. For instance,
White (1967) proposed a direct link between a particular
set of VBN and environmental behaviors and claimed that
Christian theology was distinctly anti-environmental. In
addition, he suggested that western technology and science
were shaped by the Christian tenet of man’s dominion over
nature. Research by scholars such as Eckberg and Blocker
(1989), Schultz, Zeleny and Dalrymple (2000), and Zepeda
and Li (2007) showed that religious beliefs played a role in
environmental concerns and behaviors and found evidence
to support White’s views.

Occasional Paper No.13

 27

Indeed, in the Old Testament, it is written that:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps
upon the earth’.”

- (Genesis 1:26 Revised Standard Version,

Oxford University Press)

This tenet from the bible could explain the attitude of most
participants in the present study with regard the relations
between man and nature. As one of them remarked in
response to the question on animal testing, “Anyway,
everything is given to us by God and we just need to be
responsible guardians.”

Detailed Analysis
28

Implications for Future Research

T his exploratory study has provided some insights that

may be of use to future researchers who wish to continue
the investigation in this area.

. . . it has become First of all, it has become apparent that

green customer profiles are country-
apparent that green
specific due to inherent differences
customer profiles in lifestyles, beliefs, cultures, and
are country-specific practices. Hence, any attempt to
due to inherent create a profile of the Filipino green
differences in consumer needs to use data-collection
instruments that incorporate variables
lifestyles, beliefs,
appropriate for the Filipino consumer,
cultures, and instead of merely using customer
practices. profiles derived from somewhere else.

Second, any attempt to create a profile of the Filipino green

consumer needs to include an investigation into the motivational
issues behind the behavior instead of creating data-collection
instruments that merely focus on the behavior. This way, the
study can unmask the underlying motivation. This approach is
important because two people behaving in the same manner may
be doing it for two very different reasons (which would imply that
their profiles are not the same).

A final recommendation regarding future studies involves the

sampling methodology. The responses from the various FGD groups
suggest differences in attitudes and behavior across socio-economic
Occasional Paper No.13
 29

groups and regional locations. Hence, it is suggested that more

comprehensive profiling studies on the Filipino green consumer
should utilize sampling designs that take into consideration the
differences across various demographic segments and regions in the
country.

Implications for Future Research

30

References

Calder, B. J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing

research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 353-364.

Chan, R. Y. K. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers green purchase

behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 18(4), 389–413.

Chan, R., Wong, Y. Y., & Leung, T. T. (2008). Applying ethical concepts to the
study of green consumer behavior: An analysis of Chinese consumers’
intentions to bring their own shopping bags. Journal of Business Ethics,
79(4), 469-481.

Chryssides, G. D., & Kaler, J. H. (1993). An introduction to business ethics.

Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on

the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 11(2), 162-173.

Datta, S. (2011). Pro-environmental concern influencing green buying: A study

on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business & Management,
6(6), 124-133.

do Paço, A. M. F, Raposo, M. L. B., & Filho, W. L. (2009). Identifying the green

consumer: A segmentation study. Journal of Targeting, Measurement
and Analysis for Marketing, 17(1), 17-25.

do Paço, A., & Raposo, M. (2010). Green consumer market segmentation:

Empirical findings from Portugal. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34(4), 429-436

D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions:
Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371-376.

Occasional Paper No.13

 31

Eckberg, D., & Blocker, T. (1989). Varieties of religious involvement and

environmental concerns: Testing for Lynn White Thesis. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(4), 509

Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill Professional.

Elkington, J., Hailes, J. & Makower, J. (1990) The green consumer. New York,
NY: Penguin Books.

Florenthal, B., & Arling, P. A. (2011). Do green lifestyle consumers appreciate

low involvement green products? Marketing Management Journal,
21(2), 35-45.

Greenbaum, T. (1988). The practical handbook and guide to focus group research.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Lopez, A., & Cuervo-Arango, M. (2008). Relationship among values, beliefs,

norms and ecological behaviour. Psicothema, 20(4), 623-629.

McDonagh, P., & Clark, A. (1995). Corporate communications about

sustainability: turning clever companies into enlightened companies.
Greener Management International, 11, 49-62.

Memery, J., Megicks, P., & Williams, J. (2005). Ethical and social responsibility
issues in grocery shopping: A preliminary typology. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 8(4), 399-412.

Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green

purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern
and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 220-229.

Ottman, J. A., & Reilly, W. R. (1998). Green marketing: opportunity for

innovation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships

between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79-89.

References
32

Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L., & Dalrymple, N. J. (2000). A multinational

perspective on the relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs
and attitudes of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior,
32, 576–591.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents
of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–46.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant

behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.

Suplico, L. T. (2009). Impact of green marketing on the students’ purchase

decision. Journal of International Business Research, 8(2), 71-81.

Trivedi, R. H., Patel, J. D., & Savalia, J. R. (2011). Pro-environmental behavior

of consumers: A taxonomy and its implications for the green marketer.
South Asian Journal of Management, 18(4), 121-132.

Vicsek, L. (2012). A new look at the role of social influence, group composition
and setting: Reconsidering the typical practice for market research
focus groups. Romanian Journal of Marketing, (1), 2-8.

White, L. Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155,
1203–1207.

Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese cultural values: their dimensions and marketing

implications. European Journal of Marketing, 22(5), 44–57.

Zepeda, L., & Li, J. (2007). Characteristics of organic food shoppers. Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics, 39, 17–28.

Zhang, J. Y. (1998). Tao, nature and environmental protection. Beijing, CH: Hua
Xia Publishing.

Occasional Paper No.13

 33

Appendix A

FGD Discussion Guide Questions

I. Perceptions and Attitudes

1. Can you give us your thoughts about the environment?
2. When you hear the term “eco-friendly”, what comes to your mind?
3. What eco-friendly products are you aware of?
4. Can you name the brands of eco-friendly products?
5. Can you name the stores that promote eco-friendly practices?
6. Are you willing to buy products that have been tested on animals?
7. How concerned are you about pollution?
8. Do you think eco-friendly products are more expensive than non-eco-
friendly products?
9. Do you think that being eco-friendly affects the quality of the
product?

II. Behavior
1. Do you recognize this label? (Universal Recycling Logo)
2. Do you check if a product is labeled as eco-friendly before making a
purchase?
3. Do you use a recycled shopping bag instead of a plastic bag when
shopping?
4. By how much more are you willing to pay for eco-friendly products?
5. Do you prefer to buy energy-efficient household appliances?
6. Have you switched to another brand that is more eco-friendly?
7. Do you prefer recycled or biodegradable products?
8. Do you buy products in refillable containers?
9. Do you segregate your trash?
10. Do you reduce the amount of trash that you create?

Appendix
34

Appendix B
Universal Recycling Symbol

Occasional Paper No.13